Quantum mechanics provides us most fundamental descriptions of our most early universe, but there is a long-standing debate amongst theoretical physicists about what all these mathematics really mean in real world? The present three-dimensional (3D) universe, we humans experience daily since our birth, is probably just one of an enormous numbers of essentially classical worlds, and all quantum phenomena arise from a universal force of repulsions that prevented many universes (Multiverse) from having identical physical configurations like ours. Probabilities arise only because of our human ignorance as to which in our world an observer occupies a position in space time. This picture is all that is needed to explain bizarre quantum effects such as particles that can tunnel through solid barriers and wave behavior in double-slit experiments or in a warm hole. Our many-interacting-universes approach hinges on our assumption that interactions between deterministically evolving worlds cause all quantum effects. Each world is simply the position of particles in three-dimensional space time, and each would evolve according to Newton’s laws, if there were no inter world interactions. A surprising feature of human approach was that the formulation contains nothing that corresponds to the mysterious quantum wave functions, except in the formal mathematical limit in which the number of worlds becomes infinitely large. Conversely, Newtonian mechanics corresponds to the opposite limit of just one world. Thus, our approach should incorporate both classical and quantum theory. As few as two interacting worlds can result in quantum like effects, such as tunneling through a barrier. Many interacting worlds theory (MIW) explains that rather than standing apart, an infinite number of universes in the early time shared the same space and time as ours. They show that the theory can explain quantum mechanical effects while leaving open the choice of theory to explain the universe at large scales. This is a fascinating new variant of multiverse theory that, in a sense, creates not just a doppelganger of everyone but an infinite number of them all overlaying each other in the same space and time. The fine tuning of parameters required to reproduce our present day universe suggests that our universe may simply be a region within an eternally inflating super-region. Many other regions beyond our observable universe might have existed in earlier times with each such universe governed by a different set of physical parameters and laws. Collision between these regions, if they occurred, should have left signatures of anisotropy in the cosmic microwave background (CMB) but have not been seen yet. We assess different mechanisms for this residual emission and conclude that although there is a 30% probability that noise fluctuations may cause foregrounds to fall within 3σ of the excess, there is less than a 0.5% probability that foregrounds can explain all the excess. A plausible explanation is that the collision of our universe with an alternate universe, whose baryon to photon ratio is a factor of ∼ 4500 larger than ours, could produce enhanced Hydrogen Paschen-series emission at the epoch of recombination. Future spectral mapping and deeper observations at 100 and 217 GHz are needed to mitigate systematics arising from unknown galactic foregrounds and to confirm this unusual hypothesis. After careful analysis of the spectrum of the CMB, Chary et al. found a signal that was about 4500x brighter than it should have been, based on the number of protons and electrons. Scientists believe that this existed in the very early universe. Indeed, this particular signal, an emission line that arose from the formation of atoms during the era of recombination is more consistent with a universe whose ratio of matter particles to photons is about 65x greater than our own. There is a 30% chance that this mysterious signal is just noise, and not really, a signal at all; however, it is also possible that it is real, and exists as a parallel universe. Keywords : Quantum mechanics, multiverse, Newtonian mechanics Cite this Article Pranab Kumar Bhattacharya, et al . Schrodinger Cat's Experiment's Interpretation and Parallel Universe or Multiple Universes. Research and Reviews: Journal of Space Science and Technology. 2016; 5(1): 35–52p.
Quantum mechanics provides us most fundamental descriptions of our most early universe, but there is a long-standing debate amongst theoretical physicists about what all these mathematics really mean in real world? The present three-dimensional (3D) universe, we humans experience daily since our birth, is probably just one of an enormous numbers of essentially classical worlds, and all quantum phenomena arise from a universal force of repulsions that prevented many universes (Multiverse) from having identical physical configurations like ours. Probabilities arise only because of our human ignorance as to which in our world an observer occupies a position in space time. This picture is all that is needed to explain bizarre quantum effects such as particles that can tunnel through solid barriers and wave behavior in double-slit experiments or in a warm hole. Our many-interacting-universes approach hinges on our assumption that interactions between deterministically evolving worlds cause all quantum effects. Each world is simply the position of particles in three-dimensional space time, and each would evolve according to Newton’s laws, if there were no inter world interactions. A surprising feature of human approach was that the formulation contains nothing that corresponds to the mysterious quantum wave functions, except in the formal mathematical limit in which the number of worlds becomes infinitely large. Conversely, Newtonian mechanics corresponds to the opposite limit of just one world. Thus, our approach should incorporate both classical and quantum theory. As few as two interacting worlds can result in quantum like effects, such as tunneling through a barrier. Many interacting worlds theory (MIW) explains that rather than standing apart, an infinite number of universes in the early time shared the same space and time as ours. They show that the theory can explain quantum mechanical effects while leaving open the choice of theory to explain the universe at large scales. This is a fascinating new variant of multiverse theory that, in a sense, creates not just a doppelganger of everyone but an infinite number of them all overlaying each other in the same space and time. The fine tuning of parameters required to reproduce our present day universe suggests that our universe may simply be a region within an eternally inflating super-region. Many other regions beyond our observable universe might have existed in earlier times with each such universe governed by a different set of physical parameters and laws. Collision between these regions, if they occurred, should have left signatures of anisotropy in the cosmic microwave background (CMB) but have not been seen yet. We assess different mechanisms for this residual emission and conclude that although there is a 30% probability that noise fluctuations may cause foregrounds to fall within 3σ of the excess, there is less than a 0.5% probability that foregrounds can explain all the excess. A plausible explanation is that the collision of our universe with an alternate universe, whose baryon to photon ratio is a factor of ∼ 4500 larger than ours, could produce enhanced Hydrogen Paschen-series emission at the epoch of recombination. Future spectral mapping and deeper observations at 100 and 217 GHz are needed to mitigate systematics arising from unknown galactic foregrounds and to confirm this unusual hypothesis. After careful analysis of the spectrum of the CMB, Chary et al. found a signal that was about 4500x brighter than it should have been, based on the number of protons and electrons. Scientists believe that this existed in the very early universe. Indeed, this particular signal, an emission line that arose from the formation of atoms during the era of recombination is more consistent with a universe whose ratio of matter particles to photons is about 65x greater than our own. There is a 30% chance that this mysterious signal is just noise, and not really, a signal at all; however, it is also possible that it is real, and exists as a parallel universe. Keywords : Quantum mechanics, multiverse, Newtonian mechanics Cite this Article Pranab Kumar Bhattacharya, et al . Schrodinger Cat's Experiment's Interpretation and Parallel Universe or Multiple Universes. Research and Reviews: Journal of Space Science and Technology. 2016; 5(1): 35–52p.
This paper re-opens the debate on the failure of quantum mechanics to provide an understandable view of micro-reality. A critique is offered of the commonly accepted ‘Copenhagen Interpretation’ of a theory that is only a mathematical approach to the level of reality characterized by atoms and electrons. This critique is based on the oldest approach to thinking about nature for over 2500 years, known as Natural Philosophy. Quantum mechanics (QM) was developed over the first quarter of the 20th Century, when scientists were enthralled by a new philosophy known as Positivism, whose foundations were based on the assumption that material objects exist only when measured by humans – this central assumption conflates epistemology (knowledge) with ontology (existence). The present critique rejects this human-centered view of reality by assuming material reality has existed long before (and will persist long after) human beings (“Realism”). The defensive view that the micro-world is too different to understand using regular thinking (and only a mathematical approach is possible) is rejected totally. At least 12 earlier QM interpretations are critically analyzed, indicating the broad interest in “what does QM mean?” The standard theory of quantum mechanics is thus constructed on only how the micro-world appears to macro measurements - as such, it cannot offer any view of how the foundations of the world are acting when humans are not observing it - this has generated almost 100 years of confusion and contradiction at the very heart of physics. Significantly, we live in a world that is not being measured by scientists but is interacting with itself and with us. QM has failed to provide explanations: only recipes (meaningless equations), not insights. Physics has returned to the pre-Newtonian world of Ptolemaic phenomenology: only verifiable numbers without real understanding. The focus needs to be on an explicit linkage between the micro-world, when left to itself, and our mental models of this sphere of material reality, via the mechanism of measurement. This limits the role of measurement to confirming our mental models of reality but never confusing these with a direct image of ‘the thing in itself’. This implies a deep divide between reality and appearances, as Kant suggested. This paper includes an original analysis of several major assumptions that have been implicit in Classical Mechanics (CM) that were acceptable in the macroscopic domain of reality, demonstrated by its proven successes. Unfortunately, only a few of these assumptions were challenged by the developers of QM. We now show that these other assumptions are still generating confusions in the interpretation of QM and blocking further progress in the understanding of the microscopic domain. Several of these flawed assumptions were introduced by Newton to support the use of continuum mathematics as a model of nature. This paper proposes that it is the attempt to preserve continuum mathematics (especially calculus), which drives much of the mystery and confusion behind all attempts at understanding quantum mechanics. The introduction of discrete mathematics is proposed to help analyze the discrete interactions between the quintessential quantum objects: the electrons and their novel properties. A related paper demonstrates that it is possible to create a point-particle theory of electrons that explains all their peculiar (and ‘paradoxical’) behavior using only physical hypotheses and discrete mathematics without introducing the continuum mathematical ideas of fields or waves. Another (related) paper proves that all the known results for the hydrogen atom can also be exactly calculated from this new perspective with the discrete mathematics. * Surrey, B.C. Canada (604) 542-2299 spsi99@telus.net Version 2.015 08-05-2017 Begun 23-06-2008 {pp. 82, 70.2 Kw; 800 KB}
Schrödinger’s quantum mechanics is a legacy of Hamiltonian’s classical mechanics. But Hamiltonian mechanics was developed from an empty space paradigm, for which Schrödinger’s equation is a timeless (t = 0) or time-independent deterministic equation, which includes his fundamental principle of superposition. When one is dealing Schrödinger equation, it is unavoidable not to mention about Schrödinger ‘s cat. Which is one of the most elusive cats in modern science since disclosed the half-life cat hypothesis in 1935. The cat is alive or not had been debated by score of world renounced scientists it is still debating. Yet I will show Schrödinger ‘s hypothesis is not a physically realizable hypothesis, for which it has nothing for us to debate about. But quantum communication and computing rely on qubit information algorithm, I will show that qubit information logic is as elusive as Schrödinger’s cat. It exists only within an empty space, but not exists within our temporal (t > 0) universe. Since there is always a price to pay within our universe, I will show that every physical subspace needs a section of time ∆t and an amount of energy ∆E to create and it is not free. Although, double slit hypothesis had been fictitiously confirmed that superposition principle exists, but I will show that double-slit postulation is another non-physically realizable hypothesis that had let us to believing superposition principle is actually existed within our time–space. Yet one of the worst coverup must be particles behaved differently within a micro space to justify the spooky superposition principle, which is one of greatest quantum conspiracy in modern science. Nevertheless, the art of quantum mechanics is all about a physically realizable equation, we see that everything existed within our universe, no matter how small it is, it has to be temporal (t > 0) which includes all the laws, principles, and equations. Otherwise, it is virtual as mathematics is since Schrodinger equation is mathematics, but mathematics is not equaled to science. Finally, when science turns to virtual reality for solution it is not a reliable answer. But when science turns to physical reality for an answer it is a reliable solution.
The difficulties of the old quantum theory were largely dispelled by the development of quantum mechanics in the 1920s. First Heisenberg (1925) developed the rather abstract matrix mechanics and soon after Schro¨dinger (1926; see also Eckart, 1926) developed the physically more appealing wave mechanics. Subsequently he showed them to be mathematically equivalent. The physicists were greatly relieved; now they had once again a mathematical formalism that enabled the results of experiments to be calculated. It was possible to move forward. It is certainly a very elegant and indeed beautiful formalism, and does enable the results of many physical measurements to be calculated with great accuracy. It is used daily by atomic and nuclear physicists; there is no other way to make calculations. From the earliest days there has been intense debate about the interpretation of quantum mechanics, and it shows no signs of being settled; if anything it is becoming more intense over the years. As Penrose has remarked, no one understands quantum mechanics. Feynman (1967; see also Sykes, 1994) also admitted that ‘nobody understands quantum mechanics’, and Einstein once remarked: ‘I have thought a hundred times as much about the quantum problems as I have about general relativity theory’ (Pais, 1994, p. 57). It should therefore be evident that the most that can be done here is to try to show where the real difficulties lie, and how the failure to recognize that quantum mechanics is an essentially statistical theory has led to a series of confusing quantum paradoxes. It is just these paradoxes that have often been used to support theological speculations. It is useful to ask what ‘understanding quantum mechanics’ actually means. Certainly it means being able to calculate the results of many measurements. The same applies to Newton’s theory of gravitation, which we understand in the sense that we can use it as a basis of calculation, although we do not really understand the gravitational force itself. Very often, especially in modern physics, the mathematical formalism does not give us the sort of intuitive physical feeling for what is going on that we often obtain from classical mechanics. Perhaps we can never achieve more than this for quantum mechanics. In classical mechanics we can assume that a property that is measured objectively exists prior to the interaction of the measuring apparatus with the observed system. Quantum mechanics, however, ‘is incompatible with the proposition that measurement discovers some unknown but pre-existing property’ (Peres, 1997, p. 14). There is an important distinction between mysteries and absurdities. We may be forced to live with mysteries, but there is no reason why we should put up with absurdities such as the wave-particle duality, tunnelling through potential barriers, acausal events and the collapse of the wave function. These are the quantum paradoxes that will be discussed later on. They arise within the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics and are solved by other interpretations. These alternative interpretations enable us to make conjectures about what is going on, even though we cannot understand it in detail. This is acceptable and a stimulus to further research. It is certainly difficult enough to understand quantum mechanics, but there is no need to try to visualize logical absurdities in the effort to do so. Quantum mechanics is a mathematical formalism that makes it possible to calculate the results of some experiments. Anything more than this, such as questions about the interpretation of what is measured and whether it tells us what is actually going on in the system being studied, belongs to philosophy. Thus we are concerned here with what is essentially a philosophical debate; if it were just a matter of physics the debate would have been settled long ago. One of the difficulties is that it invokes the results of experiments and uses the language of quantum mechanics. Inevitably this language uses philosophical terms and then it is easy to give the impression that the philosophical propositions are in some way entailed by the physical results. These in turn can influence theological thinking. In order to be quite clear which arguments are justified and which are not, it is essential to separate the three levels of discourse: physical, philosophical and theological. Our task is to relate these together, and this immediately raises the traditional problems of the philosophy of science, including the relation of experiment to theory, and of theory to explanation. We begin by discussing experiments, distinguishing between those that are real and those that are imaginary.
The modern version of the wave-function collapse in quantum mechanics is based on decoherence and leads to the multiverse interpretation of quantum mechanics. The decoherence causes the universe to develop an emergent branching structure. One can interpret the branching structure either as a tree structure or as parallel different histories. Time is not continuous since there are no measurable continuous in quantum physics. Notion of continuous range of possible values of time is just an idealization. The same goes with the direction of time that is a prior assumption based on the branching structure of the multiverse. The multiverse does not exist in external space nor time since there is nothing more beside it. The observer's mind should be not in a superposition with himself. Because of this, in the Many-minds interpretations it is argued that the distinction between worlds should be made at the level of the individual observer. The human bodies are in a superposition, but the minds have definite states that are never in superposition. All possible lives, personalities that do not violate the laws of physics are facts since they represent a valid history in the multiverse. We are one of this possible personalities. Our choices are defined by our personality explained to us by our mind, our consciousness is the unchangeable part of us. It is nonphysical and it senses the world. It does not interact with the brain in the other way beside it.
This research aimed to achieve 2 primary objectives: 1) To study Schrödinger's cat theory and the concept of multiverses, 2) to analyze the interpretations of Schrödinger's cat theory and the concept of multiverses. The data analysis is descriptive.The research results were as follows:1. Schrödinger's cat theory and the Multiverse concept have shown that Schrödinger's Cat theory is a thought experiment in quantum mechanics proposed by Austrian physicist Erwin Schrödinger. It describes the simultaneous multiple states of an atom or entity until it is observed or measured. For instance, in the famous cat-in-a-box experiment, before measurement, the cat exists in a state of both being alive and dead simultaneously, leading to a complex reality in its state. Physicist Hugh Everett later introduced the Many-Worlds Interpretation to address the complexities, giving rise to the concept of parallel universes and the Multiverse.2. When interpreting Schrödinger's cat theory and the multiverse concept, it was discovered that within the framework of Western physics, they involve deductive reasoning and fall into the category of quantity and approximation. However, when interpreted within the framework of Indian metaphysical philosophy, they are associated with inductive reasoning and belong to the category of inference and approximation. This contrast highlights how Schrödinger's Cat theory can be a valuable philosophical tool for discussing ideas related to parallel universes and the Multiverse, especially when considering different approaches to interpretation.These findings shed light on the significance of Schrödinger's Cat theory as a philosophical instrument for exploring the concepts of parallel universes and the Multiverse and for considering the possibilities of diverse states for events occurring simultaneously, even when we only observe a fraction of them.
Quantum theory is a mathematical formalism that allows physicists to predict the probability of observing different outcomes in experiments on sub-atomic systems. It has been tested more rigorously than any theory in science, and has never been wrong. However, strictly speaking it does not “explain” the behavior of sub-atomic systems, since it does not propose a mechanism to account for it. It tells us that they will behave in certain ways, but not why . Thus, quantum mechanics is not a theory in the sense familiar to social scientists, namely a body of laws that explains some part of reality. The explanatory question is the subject of the interpretive debates that surround the theory, not of the theory per se. That said, the literature routinely refers to quantum mechanics as a theory, and I shall use the terms interchangeably below. A common way to introduce quantum theory is through some of the key experiments that have confirmed its predictions. In this chapter I describe three of the most well-known: the Two-Slit Experiment, the Bell Experiments, and the Delayed-Choice Experiment. While painting the same overall picture, each reveals distinct features of the quantum realm. While their interpretation is contested, here I will do my best to present just the theory's findings, saving interpretive questions for later. The Two-Slit Experiment This experiment actually had its origins long before the quantum revolution. One of the most controversial questions in classical physics was whether light was made of particles or waves. In keeping with his atomistic worldview, Newton favored the particle or “corpuscular” theory of light, which was the majority view among physicists through the eighteenth century. However, in 1801 Thomas Young performed an experiment that seemed to prove conclusively that the wave theory was correct. In his experiment, Young set up a light source behind an opaque screen with one small opening or slit, through which the light passed in a concentrated beam.